On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 2:17 AM Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:48:59PM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:34 PM Michael Niedermayer > > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > > > > > * A disagreement implies that there are 2 parties > > > * And we assume here that what one party wants is better for FFmpeg > than what the other wants. > > > * The TC needs to find out which partys choice is better or suggest a > 3rd choice. > > > * If one but not the other party is a member of the TC then this > decission becomes biased if that member votes > > > > > > Your interpretation suggests that the TC members are "above" everyone > and should > > > prevail in arguments they have with others. > > > > > > > Noone is above the rules, but just because someone has an opinion and > > shared it shouldn't disqualify them, because they were specifically > > voted into the TC for their opinions on technical matters. > > Would their opinion, and therefore their vote, change if someone else > > was seen as the person "blocking"? > > I think you are mixing the concept of an oppinion and blocking a patch. > following is how i see the concept > > If you state that you prefer a linked list but dont mind the patch as it is > thats an oppinion > > If you state that you prefer a linked list and i tell you that i would > prefer to keep an array and you say you are ok, again thats an oppinion > the patch is not blocked > > If you state that you prefer a linked list and i tell you that i would > prefer to keep an array and you now tell me that if i want an array i have > to go to the TC then you are blocking the patch. You and me in this case > are the cause of the TC being involved. > Only at this point we would be parties to the disagreement IMHO > and we cannot be the judge here > > > > > > What if multiple people had expressed disagreement with a patch, and > > most of the TC was involved in the public discussion already? Do the > > The question would be who is actually blocking it and not just stating > their oppinion. > > > > remaining "uninvolved" people on the TC get all the decision power? Or > > do we consider most of the TC already opposing it publicly as perhaps > > an indicator that the patch might not be the way to go? > > Thats what the TC was voted in for, to give their opinion on technical > > matters and decide if needed, so why deprive them of their opinion, > > just because they already stated it publicly? That makes no sense to > > me. > > You certainly have a point but, again I think there are big differences > between a TC oppinion and someone blocking a patch > > If a TC member states an oppinion and clearly explains the reasoning > behind it > that should have no impact on the TC members ability to vote. In fact it > should > lead to all parties discussing and resolving the conflict probably without > the > need to formally involve the TC > > IMHO, invoking the TC is already an exceptional situation and failure. > and it shouldnt give the parties of that failure more influence in the > decission. > (which is another orthogonal reason why the parties of a conflict should > not > be judges of the conflict) > > Its really strange. > > You know, if a judge files a lawsuit, that judge cannot be the judge in > that lawsuit. > This is a very simple concept. > It seems some people here see "their friend" not being allowed to vote > but thats not what this is about. > If a TC member blocks a patch, that TC member cannot vote on how to resolve > that blockage. > > If a TC member chooses not to block a patch so he retains the power in a > potential future vote. Thats a game theoretic decission he makes to > maximize > his blocking power. But really if he doesnt block it it could be applied > so this is not a logic decission. The logic decission is to block the patch > if thats what he wants and if noone else is blocking it. > game theoretically the example you provide above would never happen > as there would never be more than 1 TC member blocking a patch. > > So IMO arguing that a person should be party to a disagreement and judge of > it. But making this dependant on an argument where people have to act in an > illogic way is really odd > i long for the day in which ffmpeg might actually seem like a functioning community, where we would not constantly and needlessly bikeshed rules and other politics,but that day is clearly not today -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".